5 ms·
If one SSD has a failure rate of 5%, 4 SSDs will have a failure rate of 18.6%. If the 4 devices are in a RAID0 for convenience (don't have to figure out where t
by prirun 4y ago
If one SSD has a failure rate of 5%, 4 SSDs will have a failure rate of 18.6%. If the 4 devices are in a RAID0 for convenience (don't have to figure out where to put files), there is an 18.6% chance of losing all data vs 5% with a 16TB drive. You can use RAID5/6 to mitigate the risk but then lose capacity.
IMO, higher SSD speeds are not a target for improvement by manufacturers, but a side-effect of using higher-density chips, which is more cost-effective. They probably can't make a slow, high-capacity SSD economically.
- melony 4y ago> If one SSD has a failure rate of 5%, 4 SSDs will have a failure rate of 18.6% That doesn't make sense, the probability that all 4 SSDs will simultaneously fail at any given moment, assuming a uniform distribution, is p(0.05)^4.
- yurishimo 4y agoYou don't need all 4 to fail, you need one, assuming no redundancy, but then you are sacrificing space, thus requiring you to buy even more drives.
- LionTamer 4y agoIf only one drive fails why would you lose all your data?
- Dylan16807 4y agoWe're trying to avoid losing any data here. So we desperately need a parity drive, which will bring the odds of data loss down to 2.3% for 4+1. (Though there are other factors that significantly complicate these odds.)
- ehzy 4y agoThe point is to not lose any data. In the example, if you need 4 drives to store 16 TB of data instead of 1, your probability of data loss is 18.6% vs 5%.
- matheweis 4y agoIn theory but not necessarily in practice (see the 40k hr SSD firmware bug that recently took out HN)